UK cigarette ads claim no evidence for plain packaging

A series of unusual cigarette ads are set to crop up in UK-based publications over the coming weeks - you may have already seen them. The adverts are part of a £2 million campaign, launched by Japan Tobacco International (JTI), that calls into question the UK government's consultation on whether cigarette packaging should be made plain.

At the moment, Australia is the only country to have passed legislation that will require that all tobacco products be sold in standardised plain packets, free from brand logos, images and colours - although health warnings will remain. The law will come into effect in December this year.

In the UK, the government's Department of Health is part-way through a consultation on the subject, which is set to close next month. A statement on the DOH website claims: "The Government has an entirely open mind on standardised packaging and Health Ministers want to maximise the opportunity that people have to provide their views and evidence."

Unsurprisingly, JTI isn't the first tobacco company to campaign against proposals to remove branding from cigarette packets. Last November, just as the Australian government passed its plain packaging legislation, Philip Morris Limited, a tobacco company that holds over a third of the Australian cigarette market, announced that it was filing a lawsuit against the government. One of the company's main arguments was that: "The Government has passed this legislation despite being unable to demonstrate that it will be effective at reducing smoking."

Imperial Tobacco also claims that: "Tobacco packaging has never been identified as a reason why children start to smoke or why adult smokers continue to choose to smoke."

So does the tobacco industry have a point? Because no country has actually implemented plain tobacco packaging as yet, no one can say for sure exactly what the effects of legislation will be. But research can give us a pretty good idea.

A few years ago, David Hammond and Carla Parkinson at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada found that even subtle differences in cigarette packaging can influence how they are perceived by consumers. People were more likely to pick out light-coloured packets as containing the healthiest cigarettes, for example.

Such branding tricks really do alter smokers' buying habits, too. A survey of 12,000 smokers and people who used to smoke suggested that over a third of smokers buy cigarettes branded as "light" on the understanding that they are healthier, despite evidence suggesting they're not.

If there are to be any images on the packets, they should be warnings, says Hammond.

It's thought that graphic images are more likely to be burned into our memories than text warnings. Indeed, that was the conclusion of Hammond and his colleagues after they reviewed almost 100 studies on tobacco health warnings. Similar findings have resulted from studies on British, Canadian and Australian consumers.

The UK government has already started implementing measures to protect potential smokers from cigarette branding. As of April 6 this year, large shops and supermarkets in England were required by law to cover up and hide existing displays of cigarettes and tobacco products. At the time, UK Health Minister Anne Milton said: "Banning displays of cigarettes and tobacco will help young people resist the pressure to start smoking and help the thousands of adults in England who are currently trying to quit."

If you want to share your own opinions on the current decision on whether packaging should be made plain, you can submit your views to the UK Department of Health's consultation process online until August 10.

There is some appalling misinformation that has taken hold in the mainstream media about this issue. I've written a blog myself about it here.
http://blogs.nature.com/sifting_the_evidence/2012/05/03/tobacco-control-plain-packaging-and-media-misinformation
Also, it's worth noting that Imperial Tobacco still refuse to state that smoking causes lung cancer on their website (see their very evasive statement on it here http://www.imperial-tobacco.com/index.asp?page=35), so they might not be the best source of information about 'evidence'. I went to a great talk this morning at the Experimental Psychology Society conference in Bristol about a plain packaging eye tracking study - the paper is under review at the moment so hopefully the evidence they found will be in the public domain soon.

Roger
on July 12, 2012 3:18 PM

It's funny.. if they're so sure that plain packaging won't reduce smoking, why do they care if it's introduced?

Lisa
on July 12, 2012 5:42 PM

Tobacco branding is like the well-dressed stranger who sidles up to little kids and whispers, "wanna come to my van and see my puppy?"

Smokers are among the most brand-loyal customers of any consumer product, so the only ones really affected by plain packaging are those that the branding is carefully designed to attract - the kids and teenagers the industry charmingly calls “pre-smokers.”

If this measure weren't going to affect smoking rates, there would be no outcry. What's bad for the tobacco industry is good for public health, and plain packaging passes the "scream test" with flying colours. Anything the tobacco industry opposes this vehemently is a winner.

Tim
on July 12, 2012 6:01 PM

I can only agree with Roger and Lisa. The reaction of the tobacco companies is strong evidence that packaging matters.

Allen
on July 12, 2012 8:17 PM

That's hilarious!

They need to tell their stock holders then, why their companies are wasting all that money on fancy wrappers.

Mark M
on July 12, 2012 11:36 PM

How stupid is that industry?

If, as they claim, plain packets will have no effect, then they have absolutely nothing to object to.

The only reason I would oppose plain packaging is because it smacks of 1984, furthermore, it may well roll onto a variety of other products the government decide are bad for our health (alcohol, then household goods, then all sorts of foods, electronics etc) - at what point does a completely synthetic and already unnatural urban environment warrant a total lack of colour? Urban design is drab, lifeless and colourless enough as it is and unless we start doing something serious about the lack of variety of colour and life in the form of greenspaces interspersing our urban environments, we're just making the urban environment increasingly mundane. I'm not saying "keep colourful branding because it's the only flash of colour in our towns (think of all the shop fronts, colourful branding)" but what I am saying is that the government appears to be continuously making urban environments increasingly depressing and banal. Do you want your house full of grey-beige products?

The packages here in Canada are so awful to look at that smokers feel embarrassed to pull the packs out, and will ask the shopkeeper for packs with the 'least worst' images on them. It seems to me that these photos have the most effect on teenagers. http://www.smoke-free.ca/warnings/canada-warnings.htm

The industry here would love plain packages.

Paulo
on July 13, 2012 3:05 PM

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out that this proposed measure will work and should be viewed as an extension to the Tobacco Advertising & Promotion Act 2002. It will close an obvious loop hole which the tobacco industry has effectively exploited for a growing number of years.

The slipper slope argument of what next? - Alcohol, fatty food etc is just scaremongering by the tobacco industry. The UK started to ban cigarettes advertising in 1965, with a raft of legislative measures over the years to further restrict the industry. This has not resulted in other consumable products having these types of restrictions; therefore plain standardised packaging for tobacco will not set a precedent for other goods.

Neil
on July 13, 2012 5:40 PM

Hi, so I'm a smoker (just get that out of the way), I totally accept that it is health damaging, unattractive, stupid, all those things.
I just think, look it's not illegal, so why should it be treated any different to any other age restricted product, I'm thinking alcohol, video games, dvds, etc. All these things are allowed to advertise, and as such may fall into the hands of those they're not intended for.
So, if they really want to do something about it, make it illegal, I personally wouldn't have a problem with that.
I mean somethings either "bad-and-wrong", or its not. Then again they don't half love my tax money. :-)

Simon Pop
on July 13, 2012 7:17 PM

I don't know about light coloured being perceived as healthiest, but it would certainly be interesting to know what brand most doctors smoke. It is still Camels or have tastes changed?

Dominic
on July 27, 2012 5:21 PM

@Jeremy Hunter
The most fatuous "argument" I've seen in a while, well done.